Daily Archives: 9 July 2024

My Renewed Suggestion

Posted on by
Reply

Former President and current Republican putative nominee for President Donald Trump has challenged Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden to a rematch debate. Trump’s challenge flips the boxing world’s rematch challenge protocol on its head: usually it’s the match loser who challenges the winner to a rematch; this time it’s the debate winner who’s challenging the debate loser to a rematch. This time, too, a cage match: no holds barred.

Biden should take him up on the offer, and sooner would be better. It would be Biden’s chance to prove that his prior debate performance was a fluke. That sort of thing happens in boxing, too: see the Ingemar Johansson-Floyd Patterson series of matches, where Patterson sleepwalked into a Johansson right hand, and then won both rematches, almost in walkovers. So it could be with Biden, with an already scheduled (re)match in September.

The parallels are plain, too. Johanssen was a bit of a hedonist and trained accordingly. Trump doesn’t explicitly prepare for his debates; he relies on his experience as he trots around the countryside in his private jet, moving along to this or that campaign rally. Patterson, on the other hand, trained in monk-like ascetism and isolation. Biden trained in similar isolation, including a week in retreat preparing for his June debate.

Thus my renewed suggestion for Trump. If Biden declines the challenge for a nearby, wide open debate, then Trump should debate an empty chair, or maybe an empty barstool. This time, though, instead of the round arena of a cage match, do it in the round arena of a townhall. Two barstools in the center, one occupied by Trump—or not, as he gets up and strolls around the stage addressing all of the crowd—and one occupied by Biden, who won’t get off his stool, if he shows up at all.

Fact is, it wouldn’t be much different than the CNN debate last month, where Trump debated a nearly empty podium. And one more suggestion: don’t interrupt. Let Biden’s rambling answers speak for themselves, while Trump then demonstrates his own memory and acumen by picking apart Biden’s rambles point by point with facts and specific achievements in his rebuttals. The no interruptions bit would be the hard part, and the challenge, for Trump.

It’s a win-win proffer: Trump wins the rematch, or not, and us American voters win by observing empirically the quality of Biden’s performance.

Joe Biden vs Lyndon Johnson

Posted on by
Reply

There are some comparisons being made between Biden’s desired-by-many decision to quit his campaign for reelection and Lyndon Johnson’s actual decision to not run for reelection.

It’s a silly comparison. Here are a couple of reasons for that:

Johnson made his decision public in February of that year’s Presidential campaign, while even were Biden to so decide tomorrow, it’s July and only a few weeks before his Party’s convention.

Johnson, aside from his role in the by then generally unpopular Vietnam War, had a record on which the replacement Democratic candidate could run. Biden does not. His record is one of border erasure; international kowtowing and retreat; and domestic economic inflation, overregulation, and destruction.

The 1968 convention was pretty chaotic inside the building, but that was because there were a number of actually viable candidates in the contest.

The 2024 convention also would be chaotic, were the delegates on their own consciences to vote down Biden. That, though, would be because Party, as Leo Terrell has said on more than one occasion, practices identity politics and so would be stuck with Progressive-Democrat Vice President Kamala Harris, who is not viable as a Presidential candidate. Were Party to try to nominate someone other than her, the racist and sexist hue and cry would be deafening. The contest between those factions—viable candidate(s) vs Harris—would be bloody, and the damage done to Party would last for years.

The only serious comparison between the two is a potentially dangerous environment for a convention being held in Chicago. The Democratic Party’s 1968 convention was marred by widespread violent riots. And in response to the rioters, who among us recalls Chicago’s Democratic Mayor Richard J Daley’s “shoot to kill” order?

Pro-Palestinian, pro-Hamas, anti-Israel terrorist supporters have already promised violent “demonstrations” for the Progressive-Democratic Party’s Chicago-hosted convention, now in a city with a reduced police capability and a reduced zeal for prosecution.

The two decisions would have a couple of contrasts but not many similarities. In the main, there isn’t any comparison.